Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IsaacG]

As a personal political note. I am against [unfettered] free speech.

Certain speeches should be protected, (Speaking out against the government). Others should be illegal, (Threats, hate, the entire KKK)

that is not free speech, you are against free speech

This is taking an ideal, free speech, interpreting it a specific way, and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with that interpretation is opposed to the ideal.
We all agree with the ideal of free speech, we just don't agree on the definition of free speech.
The classic is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, knowing the resulting panic could cause trampling and severe injury or death.  Just about no one believes this action should be without consequences, and therefore not all forms of speech are protected under the ideal of "free speech".  The legal definition prevents free speech from including anything that creates "a clear and present danger."
Hate speech and threats of violence have no small amount of debate for whether they constitute free speech, or whether they constitute a clear and present danger.

I recommend saving the statement "you are against free speech" for elsewhere.

[EuchreJack]

My theory on free speech:
The more offensive the things that others say and get away with,
...The less I fear being arrested for what I say.

[Neckbeard]

I don't support absolutes, for the most part.  (<-- Self acknowledgement of this believe being absolute and contradictory.)

When it comes to free speech, I don't support a persons right or privilege to make false legal accusations, or cries for violence that a person knows or ought to have known (in the case of a claim of ignorance for such calls that do result in action) would have been acted upon.

I don't think any reasonable person would equate the above to free speech, even if the argument could be made successfully.  I can support everything else free speech could potentially cover though, even if I find it abhorrent or disturbing.

[PTTG??]

I have always maintained that LCS represents the average Donald Trump supporter's feveréd nightmares. Interestingly enough, the game has lived long enough to be slightly out of date.

Remembering that we are discussing the popular straw-men of groups, rather than anything anyone actually supports, L+ now represents a stance like "Triggering phrases constitute Assault With a Deadly Phrase and result in jail time."

C+ now represents "The only thing it is illegal to say is 'I'm Offended.'"

Frankly I would rather enjoy this addition, since it fits into the concept of the Crime Squad gunning down people who won't support gun control.

[Ramidel]

The truth is that free speech is an area where both sides each want free speech for what they want to say and are usually interested in suppressing the other side. But that doesn't make for a convenient in-game soundbite.

[Neonivek]

Every "Right" has an accompanied responsibility.

You have the right to association, but you cannot associate with criminals (don't twist this you know what I mean).

As far as Liberal Crime Squad is concerned

Remember that the game's feel is like if the Liberal Crime Squad themselves created the game and have 0 self-awareness.

The Liberals do truly believe that 100% freedom of speech and the ability to say whatever whenever you want would lead to the elimination of hate speech. While the Conservatives would just be a platform for mass oppression.

While yes in modern times there has been an increasing amount of censorship being fought by liberals, specifically Cyberbullying laws, that is sort of a development that occurred recently as opposed to being one of the main tenants.

[Ramidel]

Well, in the LCS, once the country is awakened to its True Liberal Nature, nobody will say anything Conservative, so restrictions on free speech won't be necessary. Until then, they can support free speech laws while violently shutting down the Conservative media.

[Neonivek]

Well, in the LCS, once the country is awakened to its True Liberal Nature, nobody will say anything Conservative, so restrictions on free speech won't be necessary. Until then, they can support free speech laws while violently shutting down the Conservative media.

Yep! 100% lack of self-awareness goodness.

[scrdest]

Same principle as how the LCS will fight for gun control to the last .50 cal dum-dum bullet, really.

'sides, LCS Conservative props are always spun to sound like they are beneficial by wording (e.g. forming a police state -> Protecting Liberty from Terrorist Threats).

[ghosteh]

Simply put, the liberals in this game are not the liberals of today, they are an idealized version of more classic liberals from the 60s & 70s

[Devastator]

Also simply put:  Many modern progressives have adopted the tactics of supression for their own purposes.  The tactic of repressing and restricting ideas that are labelled harmful is always a dangerous tactic, and remains a basic foundation of patrochial authoritarian rule.  As such the LCS must oppose such tactics.

If you find yourself agreeing with these tactics of marginalization and repression, well, maybe you are somewhat more 'conservative' than you like to think of yourself.

[PTTG??]

Also simply put:  Many modern progressives have adopted the tactics of supression for their own purposes.  The tactic of repressing and restricting ideas that are labelled harmful is always a dangerous tactic, and remains a basic foundation of patrochial authoritarian rule.  As such the LCS must oppose such tactics.

If you find yourself agreeing with these tactics of marginalization and repression, well, maybe you are somewhat more 'conservative' than you like to think of yourself.

If your idea of liberals is BLM or the Democrats, then you're rather ill-informed.

[Pwnzerfaust]

Free speech in the United States allows you to advocate anything that isn't itself illegal (including advocating changing the law to make something currently illegal become legal, and then doing that once the law is changed).

So if a Neonazi advocates amending the Constitution to installing a new Fürher with dictatorial power, that's legal (in the U.S. - not in other countries!). If xe advocates installing a new Fürher with dictatorial power by other means, that's illegal if xe has reasonable belief that someone will act on that advocacy.

The hell is this "xe" crap?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

He/she.

[Dorsidwarf]

It's a new-age non-gendered pronoun for people who are too grammar-conscious to use "they"